Offensive Jihad: The One Incontrovertible Problem with Islam
A recent MEMRI report titled “Arab Columnists: Stop Talking About Offensive Jihad” alludes to the ultimate problem between Islam and the non-Muslim world: offensive jihad — the Islamic imperative to subjugate the world. The report opens by saying: “One dominant theme during Ramadan in the Arab world is the discussion, in the media and in religious circles, of the commandment of jihad and the obligation therein to wage war against the infidels.” It then focuses on two recent op-eds, written by Arab-Muslims, that discuss the need to tone down Muslim talk of offensive jihad.
One writer, Khaled Al-Ghanami, states that the “wiser” supporters of offensive jihad believe that Muslims “must sit and wait until the era of our strength returns.” In the meantime, according to these Muslims, “there is nothing shameful about taqiyya [deception] until the time is ripe.” Al-Ghanami bemoans the fact that such Muslims operate naively “on the assumption that the world doesn’t read, doesn’t monitor … and is not paying attention to the calls for killing, tyranny, and aggression that we are spreading.”
Similarly, Abdallah Al-Naggar writes: “Today, the Muslims’ circumstances are different [i.e., they are weak], and talk of this aspect [of jihad] requires a smart approach, one that stresses the aspect of self defense, instead of aggression and onslaught,” since discussing offensive jihad “arouses the enmity of people”; thus, “there is a need for wisdom [i.e., kitman] in our impassioned discussions of war and battles.”
These writers are insightful enough to understand that Islam’s imperative for Muslims to wage offensive jihad is the one insurmountable obstacle for peace between Muslims and non-Muslims. Best not to keep reminding the infidel world, then.
Consider: most of the things Islam gets criticized for — lack of democracy, male-female relations, draconian punishments, etc. — are intra-civilizational to Islam; that is, they affect Muslims alone. As such, it is for Muslims to decide on their utility, for it is the responsibility of every civilization to reform itself from the inside, not through outside “help” or coercion, the former mistrusted, the latter resented. Modern democracy in the West developed only after the people of the West wanted it bad enough to fight for it themselves, and only after centuries of bloody — but internal — conflicts. Feminism was not forcefully imported from some alien civilization but homegrown in the West. Pragmatically speaking, then, so long as sharia’s mandates affect Muslims alone, non-Muslims can have no legitimate grievances.
And this is the dividing line: what one civilization maintains as “right” and the “norm” for itself is acceptable. However, when one civilization tries to apply, through force, those same principles onto other civilizations — whether the West trying to import liberalism to Islam, or Islam trying to spread sharia-style fascism to the West — that is objectively wrong. After all, while humans disagree over any number of socio-cultural principles, all humans — secular or religious, Muslim or non-Muslim — agree that being forced to uphold a particular lifestyle against their will is unquestionably wrong, bringing us right back to our topic: the purpose of offensive jihad is to do just that — forcefully impose a particular way of life on non-Muslims, culminating with dhimmitude for those who, after being conquered, refuse to convert.
Worse, offensive jihad is part and parcel of Islam; it is no less codified than, say, Islam’s Five Pillars, which no Muslim rejects. The Encyclopaedia of Islam’s entry for “jihad” states that the “spread of Islam by arms is a religious duty upon Muslims in general. … Jihad must continue to be done until the whole world is under the rule of Islam. … Islam must completely be made over before the doctrine of jihad can be eliminated.” Scholar Majid Khadduri (1909-2007), after defining jihad as warfare, writes that jihad “is regarded by all jurists, with almost no exception, as a collective obligation of the whole Muslim community.”
Even that chronic complainer Osama bin Laden makes it clear that offensive jihad is the root problem: “Our talks with the infidel West and our conflict with them ultimately revolve around one issue … and it is: Does Islam, or does it not, force people by the power of the sword to submit to its authority corporeally if not spiritually? Yes. There are only three choices in Islam … . Either submit, or live under the suzerainty of Islam, or die.”
Clearly, then, it is in the Muslim world’s interest to keep the West ignorant of the fact that, irrespective of all Muslim grievances — real or feigned — nothing less than Islamic law itself mandates a state of constant hostility. Indeed, if the implications of offensive jihad were fully embraced, humanity might be compelled to view the Muslim world as a perpetual, existentialist threat, in need of preemptive containment. That said, and considering the willful ignorance of the West’s political elite — who are guided less by objective facts and more by their “feel-good” ideals — Muslim talk of offensive jihad, no matter how loud or frequent, will likely continue to fall on deaf ears.
” However, when one civilization tries to apply, through force, those same principles onto other civilizations — whether the West trying to import liberalism to Islam, or Islam trying to spread sharia law to the West — that is objectively wrong.”
I disagree with you there. The Spanish were indubitably right to put an end to the grisly religious practices of the Aztecs (however wrong their other actions may have been), and the British were right to suppress the Hindu practice of sati. Morality is not merely a social construct; at its fundamental levels at least it is universal.
Having said that, the basic thrust of your article is quite correct.
The Spanish put an end to the ‘grisly religious pracitces of the Aztecs’ by exterminating their culture as did the British in Africa in ending slavery.
Islam’s only hope of overwhelming the West is through having babies since the Third World is barely able to reverse engineer a ball-point pen much less innovate.
Why muslims should want a donkey in every garage in the West is a mystery to me since this is what will happen in direct correlation to muslim populations in the West. Politically correct or not, the reason inner city Detroit is falling into a black hole is because of who cannot or will not add to the culture at large rather than acting as an anchor to it and muslim population growth in the West will have the same effect since there are only so many actually productive people to go around. Killing the goose that laid the golden egg will not happen but what will happen are the rise of combative and grievance driven cultures taught that they are equal but are not and have only access to much the same things they couldn’t invent in their own country’s but with a better lifestyle if not the respect they crave.
Meanwhile, they will such dry the tax base as happened in Michigan, Illinois and California.
Bohemond – The conundrum is that if it is not universally wrong to impose values by force then offensive jihad is not eo ipso wrong. Imposition of values is an ongoing Darwinian struggle between and within societal groups. It starts with parents imposing values. The value struggle is waged by church groups, athletic coaches, social clubs and finally by police and armies. The UN itself is a value station attempting to impose its values. It is inescapable. The crux is the force factor – by force of argument to force of arms. Outside the Islamic world there seems to be general agreement that imposition should be restrained to the argument side of the spectrum. But the nexus of agreement here is that the “West” seems woefully ignorant of the intensity and seriousness of offensive jihad – a suicidal ignorance reinforced by the imposition of the pc value system.
It depends on the values. I would hold that the values of Western classical liberalism (NOT modern liberalism) are superior to those of Islam.
Islam may be a religion but it is also by its own admission a socio/political philosophy. As evidenced by shar’ia law, that philosophy is often abhorrent. We should not feel guilt for trying to impose our own superior system of beliefs, particularly since political Islam seeks to impose its abhorrent beliefs on us.
There should be no moral relativism here. Western philosophy is simply better. We need to regain our cultural self-confidence and push that case.
Pro Cynic – basically in agreement here. But our “own superior system of beliefs” is not going to impose itself. Proponents of Islam have no doubt that their system is superior and thereby have the “right” to impose the same on the infidel world. It will be a struggle – and again I believe the nexus of agreement here, with Ibrahim, is that the Western world must wake up to the reality of the impending struggle. Ibrahim is trying to jar us out out of our pc slumber that disconnects us with reality.
RPB,
The biggest problem right now is that many in our society, especially the “cultural elite” do not believe we have the superior civilization. They draw a moral equivalence between ours and theirs, an equivalence to which you may befalling in noting that Islamists “believe” theirs is superior just as much as we believe ours. Their belief is irrelevant except inasmuch as it outstrips ours, which it currently does. And that us unacceptable.
As arrogant as this sounds, our civilization is superior to Islam. Our belief in that must be so absolute. Period. No fear of saying it. No questioning of it. Give the Islamists no philosophical leg to stand on. When they say “Allah demands shar’ia,” our response must be “Any god that demands shar’ia is a false god.” It’s true. Judging by shar’ia law, Allah is an arrogant, aloof and brutal god more akin to the Carthaginian Baal-Hammon than the Judeo-Christian God.
But Islam uses a veneer of religion to cover a political movement. To force us to be silent. Don’t let it.
If GOD, gives us free choice were do the Muslims or any other religions think they have the right to tell you how to live your life. What happens to you is between GOD, and you nobody else. That is why GOD has to come first in your life!
There was zero probability that Aztecs could be expected to show up in Spain and start destroying their culture. The problem with Mohammedanism is that Mohammed was an Arab. Their culture is unusually stupid, petty, dishonest, and violent. And they imposed their religion and culture on many different peoples through force. So, self-preservation says that we are justified in eliminating Arabs (true Arabs from Arabia, not Arabic-speakers or Mohammedans as such) from the face of the earth. Justice requires that we free all non-Arab Mohammedans from the religion/culture imposed upon them by force, by eliminating every vestige and trace of that religion. Know this: the right thing to do is always simple, and hard; the wrong thing is complicated, and easy.
Take your noxious call for genocide and put it where the sun doesn’t shine. The Muslims call for the genocide of the Jews but taht does not mean thatwe, in exasperation about attacks on us by barbarians, should imitate the Muslims in this matter.
This is just anti-Arab, mindless racism.
We Arabs are NOT a race….there are only 3 races on the planet…and Latino’s, Arabs or Mohammedans are not. So…how is it possible to be a racist if one believes that Arabs are and have professed to be our enemies? And ARE sworn to kill all non Muslims through their fascist political ideology? If one despised Germans or Hitler during WW2….were we all racists, knowing his desire to eliminate all sorts of people, not just JEWS?
Let’s stop with the PC nonsense and get a grip on the realities of the Muslim “problem”. Being “polite” won’t get you a pass to be eliminated under their laws.
//I disagree with you there. The Spanish were indubitably right to put an end to the grisly religious practices of the Aztecs (however wrong their other actions may have been), and the British were right to suppress the Hindu practice of sati//
What is right?
Spanish inquisitorial executions were documented to be some of the most hideous exercises of cruelty in the history of humanity – all committed during the same time period that the Spanish were, in your words, putting an end to the barbarity of the Aztecs. Although you concede this point, you do not realize it is a central factor crucial to defining what is “right”. Why did the Spaniards believe the Aztec practices to be barbaric? Because they were committed in the service of a strange and alien God, not because there were humanitarian concerns underlying their objections. The same Spaniard who felt the Aztecs to be barbarians, then returned to Spain and sat on the board of inquisitors, presiding over the pouring of molten metal into the mouths of “conversos” – those who had converted to Catholicism but were not to be trusted as true Christians.
Your logic ignores the importance of the motivations underlying such abolitionist movements. Motivations are crucial. You define what is right by the motivation, or intent, of the person – not by the result of actions. Saving someone from peril so that you may torture them according to the dictates of your own custom is doesn’t make the saving any less “right”, by your line of thought. Actions are never divorced from motivations. And yet the question of forcing one cultural practice onto another culture revolves precisely around issues of motivation.
@ bohemond
I would like to offer one correction in your statement. The Hindu practice of “Sati” is not through some religious mandate. Hindus do not have any such religious rules. At a time when Islamic invaders killed Hindu men, the wives would invariably be raped by the tyrants. To escape the brutality and ignominy of rape, women jumped on to the pyre of their husbands or immolated themselves. So it was a compulsion to protect ones honour rather than any social or religious practice as your statement may seem to make it appear. Yes there are still indeed some cases of such madness here and there. More than the British it is the Hindu reformists themselves who started to end this practice when Muslim rule ended in many parts of India. So even at the core of this terrible practice was muslim atrocities on Hindu women. Is that surprising?
Without Shariah Law there is no Islam and without Jihad too there is no Islam. Muslims can try to evade the question and use all the Taqqiya they want but they cant remove from the Koran (the ACTUAL ad UNALTERABLE word of their God) the aim of Islam. Which is to rule the Earth with all others reduced to either converts, second class Citizens or dead. The Jews of course will be dead already with no option of conversion or Dhimmie status so violently antisemitic is their so called “Holy Book”.
So moonbats tell us how you compromise with that when Muslims and their Holy Book itself proclaims itself to be the actual and UNALTERABLE word of their self contradictory, illogical, sadistic, vengeful, violent, misogynistic, anti Gay, antisemitic God. Tell us moonbats where is the “Peaceful” “Moderate” Islam hiding show us “Moderate Islams” Koran ???? Cant hey now there is a surprise.
#1 Bohemond…
“Morality is not merely a social construct; at its fundamental levels at least it is universal.”
It is only “universal” from your viewpoint. It is not necessarily “universal” from all viewpoints everywhere, and at a myriad of levels as defined by the myriad of beholders.
Personally, I think that their (Islamist) Orwellian thoughts and opinions and applications ought to be quarantined strictly among themselves so that they don’t infect anyone but Islamists.
Easier said than done, alas.
Oh, if only it WERE possible to put places like Afghanistan-Pakistan under quarantine, allowing them to do to themselves as they wished but not spreading their madness to us. But no, they send people to the US where he can gain citizenship then target the hearts of our cities (New York’s Times Square) or its subways (Washington).
Then kick them out and keep them out. There is no right (constitutional or otherwise) to immigrate. Residency for foreigners is a privilege extended by the government, which can revoke that privilege at any time. After the inevitable breakup of the US, the smart states, confederations or alliances will be the ones that declare all Muslims persona non grata and give them a reasonable time (3-6 months?) to leave. The only exceptions would be for diplomatic personnel, and even they must be kept on as tight a leash as international law & custom allow.
MUSLIMI ITE DOMUM
Strider,
I commend you for coming up with a concrete solution. Our immigration policy needs a great deal of tightening up. However, some of these moderate Muslims (those who are fleeing their oppressive homelands) can be of great help to us when it comes to executing the war on Islam. They should be allowed to stay. Any Muslims caught trying to institutionalize Sharia must be deported immediately. America will continue to lose this war until we begin to seriously resist the threat that is Islam. We also have an obligation to assist those in Muslim countries who would throw off their brutal oppressors…. in spite of what Mr. Ibrahim advocates.
If they are moderate, they are not truly Muslim.
“One writer, Khaled Al-Ghanami, states that the “wiser” supporters of offensive jihad believe that Muslims “must sit and wait until the era of our strength returns.” In the meantime, according to these Muslims, “there is nothing shameful about taqiyya [deception] until the time is ripe.” Al-Ghanami bemoans the fact that such Muslims operate naively “on the assumption that the world doesn’t read, doesn’t monitor … and is not paying attention to the calls for killing, tyranny, and aggression that we are spreading.””
“Even that chronic complainer Osama bin Laden makes it clear that offensive jihad is the root problem: “Our talks with the infidel West and our conflict with them ultimately revolve around one issue … and it is: Does Islam, or does it not, force people by the power of the sword to submit to its authority corporeally if not spiritually? Yes. There are only three choices in Islam … . Either submit, or live under the suzerainty of Islam, or die.””
These are the money quotes. In each case, they show that in Islam, “killing, tyranny, and aggression”, which are universally defined as Bad Things based on history, are defined as Good Things when done… to force the world to bow to Islam.
The only Bad Thing these Islamic “thinkers” see is- letting the non-Islamic world know what they’re actually doing.
The theory of “Islamic moderation” is, unfortunately, a false idea. Islam is a cultural/ideological system which is based on conquest; indeed, it literally cannot survive, let alone thrive, without it. Due to its internal prohibitions against most actual productive activity (i.e., everything being based on the “will of Allah”), Islam is almost reflexively hostile to “change” of any sort, including social or technological advancement. This is the main reason that to further its dream of hegemony, the movement has been compelled to use means which others invented; Islam no more “invented” Damascus steel in swordmaking than it “invented” the AK-47 or RPG-7V. (“Damascus steel” is actually a Chinese invention- see Joseph Needham.) Islam’s constant Soviet-style claims of “we invented it first” notwithstanding, all of its intellectual treasure was looted from somebody else.
(And only became available to the “unenlightened” West after the Muslim conquerors had been driven out of Spain, leaving their libraries behind; look up “Aldus Manutius” sometime and pay close attention to exactly how and why he came to publish classical Greek philosophers, etc., in Latin.)
As such, when Islam needs advancement, it always defaults to the same solution- conquest, and pillage. Invariably followed by the purging of anyone capable of synthesis, in the name of “protecting Islam from non-Islamic thought”.
If Islam would mind its own business, its reflexive opposition to actual development wouldn’t be a problem. But by its very nature, if it does so, it dies. Not least because, in the modern world, many Muslims can actually see what the non-Islamic world is like, with more freedom, better education, better medicine, and people actually having enough to eat- and ask “Why can’t we do that?”
Islam’s answer to any Muslim who dares to ask that question is invariably death, in the name of destroying “apostasy”.
The reasoning- such as it is- is watertight. And compels Islam to use terror, both at home and abroad, to ensure its own survival.
If Islam were to somehow succeed in universal conquest, it would then die. Why? Because once deprived of “infidels” to make war upon, it would inevitably turn on itself. Its aggressive theology allows for no other outcome. And the history of Islam shows that it is as obsessive about waging internecine conflict in the name of power and “purity” as it is about waging jihad against outsiders. (Refer to “Hasan ibn-Sabah”.)
The problem with Islam isn’t “radicalism”- it’s the underlying foundations of the philosophy itself. Considering that it was created by a medieval warlord, this should come as no surprise.
(Note that, unlike Jehovah, Allah never called upon his prophet to stop killing, looting, and pillaging; as long as it was done in Allah’s name, it was not merely permissible, but mandatory.)
For the rest of the world to coexist with Islam, the rest of the world must first confront these uncomfortable facts. And somehow, Islam must not just confront them, but do something to change them.
Unfortunately, that seems very unlikely. It is more probable that, once Islam achieves a position of “strength”, as Abdallah al-Neggar claims it does not have at present, it will become even more aggressive. In this light, Iran’s nuclear program, plus Pakistan’s, point to a very dark future. For Islam in addition to everyone else.
I do not see this ending peaceably, or well.
clear ether
eon
Drat. Forgot my header.
cheers
eon
Bohemond is correct in #1.
i agree with bohemond….turning a blind eye to the atrocities committed in the name of islam against women and minorities is tantamount to complicity. we should never turn our backs on the silent pleas of the oppressed
I think the best we can do for those oppressed ones is offer them asylum. Once it becomes necessary to our own survival, we change their societies by force.
“on the assumption that the world doesn’t read, doesn’t monitor … and is not paying attention to the calls for killing, tyranny, and aggression that we are spreading.”
Keep on going Muslims! We know who you are and where you live. Soon the Western World will tire of your quest for world domination, and remove the cancer that you have become. Unless you stop living in the 7th century and join the rest of the world in peace, tolerance and respect, YOU will not be tolerated.
Western World – understand that “taqiyya” makes all Muslims liars and you cannot believe ANYTHING that they say. Assume the opposite, no matter how grotesque it seems, and you will be closer to the truth.
Remember that Christ converts with the Word, and Mohammed converts with the Sword – the difference between love and hate. Indeed Christ taught that when slapped in the face to turn the other cheek, but nothing was said about offering up your sons and daughters to a bayonette to the belly.
THINK!
@#7 F&S
iSlam comes with the S word!
It sounds harsh, but for the reasons described in this article Islam in the West must be outlawed, Muhammadan immigration banned and reversed, and the Islamic world isolated. Moreover, unless we take their oil wealth and oil resources away from them, they will simply continue using those resources to wage jihad against us forever. Hence, they must also be rendered into poverty.
“…to apply, through force, those same principles…that is objectively wrong.” To paraphrase a great American writer “Ask the city fathers of Carthage, or Tenochtitlan. Or Berlin”
And why does no one ever, comment on the plain fact that the logical reply to Jihad is CRUSADE?
Well said! Crusade indeed. The Christian West must respond to this threat as the Christian West.
“Yes. There are only three choices in Islam. Either submit, or live under the suzerainty of Islam, or die.”
What is pathetic about mankind is that we are facing a war now that should have been left behind in the 16th century. To think that five hundred years later people are still going to actually wage a war over religion is sad to say the least. Yet it’s going to happen and it’s going to happen very, very, soon. As soon as Iran gets its nuclear weapon (which some experts say could be a year from now), all bets are off and then the mullahs who rule Iran will try to enforce their religious will on the entire Middle East. The first vicitms will obviously be Israel and the extermination of the Jews, but if the smaller, Sunni, nations in the area think that they are going to escape Iran’s wrath, dream on. Unless we can force regime change in Iran, and soon, we are going to face a disaster that’s going to make the Cuban Missile Crisis look like child’s play. If the west does not wake up to this fact, the world is facing one huge problem in about 12 months.
If you think Iran getting the bomb would be bad, read Ezekiel 38 & 39. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel%2038-39&version=NIV
The basic philosophy of Islam differs from that in other religions. Islam sincerely believes that the Other should not exist and that he must ultimately give way to Islam. It was supposed to be like that and for many centuries it looked like that would happen. Then the west became strong and Islam did not develop in a way that would create mass wealth and technology. And this is an ongoing trauma and humiliation to them, that the Other has been more successful. Islam has one great advantage, however. It can use the weapon called Liberalism to bring the Other down. Liberalism and the accompanying self disgust can do what the armies of the faithful could not do.
Muslims have about 50 countries that can be called Islamic nations where they can live as they please. Yet, unless they destroy Israel, we are told, they are entitled to destroy, not just the west, but the whole world, to make unending war on it. The troubles are not just between the west and Islam, but with Hindus, buddhists, christians in africa, and every other Other. Let us assume for argument’s sake that Israel is oppressing Palestinians. Even if Palestinians hate Israel, why should all 1 billion Muslims join in this? How can western liberals justify this terrible universal hatred? I never heard that because of apartheid, all black south africans hated all whites or even all white south africans.
I have heard many Israelis express sympathy for Palestinians. But I have never heard that a Muslim ever expressed sympathy for any jew or the Holocaust.
Islam differs from judeo christianity. It does not produce atheists, disaffected persons, indifferent persons, critical persons, persons who identify or even sympathize with the Other. There are I am sure some individuals like that, but they are rare and they must live in silence. The west imagines that a system that seems oppressive to us must die out. But that is not so. That is western bias. It is obvious that Islam is very satisfying and fulfilling. It is liberalism in the west, at least its modern incarnation, that leads to unhappiness and alienation and people not having children because they have nothing of value to pass on to them. Poor people who have religion and a community of the faithful have something to give to their children and Islam most of all. It will probably outlive western civilization.
It’s all very sad and unfortunate.
As much as I disagree with the horrific culture of Islam, I have to agree with the author…. The only lasting “defeat” of this death-dealing, “total submission” mindset must be from within their culture.
Until that time comes, an international proclamation that Islam views western culture as their “enemy,” is justification for us to “agree” and accept them as “our enemies.” Western nations should accept the reality of the warfare that has been thust upon us and declare war on our enemies.
Thereafter, a total rejection of Sharia law within in the boundaries of our nations and punitive military actions (including acceptance of “collateral damage”) against nations who will not punish Jihadists who “invade” other nations is part of the “order of war.”
Similar actions were necessary once before when Islam (“by the sword”) expanded their borders deep into the nations of north Africa and continental and Eastern Europe.
The actions of the “Crusaders” of the middle ages were, in fact, defensive responses to agressive Islamic Jihad. Recent propagandists have been very effective in obfuscating this truth.
What holds back our leaders from responding appropriately to this “clear and present danger,” the international menace of Islamic Jihad, is our own internal “political correctness.” This internal “front” should be aggresively addressed, both in the pulpits and bimas of our churches and synagogues, and in the halls of our state and national capitols.
The only alternative to full-out war and the same kind of total submission these Jihadists would thrust on us, is establishing a strategy of enforcable “containment” within the borders of Islamic nations is certainly in order. That done, the atrocities of Islam will eventually destroy cultic excesses from within.
Given the mindset of our enemy, it is unlikely the latter would be effective. It would only delay the inevitable.
Brilliant article, thanks. The only thing I would change is that sometimes morality DOES have to be imposed from outside. Islam did not ban slavery until it was forced to – ending in 1962. And slavery still exists, de facto, in Sudan. I think that women are slaves in most Moslem countries, and that the free world has an obligation to free them.
And I think freedoms of speech and conscience are sacred, and the free world should require them everywhere. That is not going to happen without coercion. When we see Seventh Day Adventists recruiting in Mecca, we will know the world is a better place.
Anyone who actually listens to muslims or pays attention to history knows the simple truth. It’s the jihad, stupid.
Islam cannot be reasoned with and there is no such animal as a ‘moderate’ moslem. Islam must be defeated on the battlefield.
The Saudi flag tells you all you need to know about Islam. The Arabic text reads, “There is no god but God and Muhammad is the Prophet of God”, and it’s punctuated with a sword. With “friends” like Saudi Arabia, enemies are unnecessary.
”However, when one civilization tries to apply, through force, those same principles onto other civilizations — whether the West trying to import liberalism to Islam, or Islam trying to spread sharia law to the West — that is objectively wrong.”
I read (and re-read) this with the emphasis on “objectively.” All other things being equal, is it wrong to use force to superimpose principles onto others? A: Yes.
However, in reality, “all other things” are rarely equal, fair or neutral. Much greater minds than mine have recognized this cultural, moral and political conundrum. In the 1800s, General Napier, the British commander in India, said: “You say it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them.”
Islam endorses slavery, rape, beatings, stoning, child abuse, so-called honor killings and jihad for the violent suppression, conversion and/or eradication of all infidels. Is this a religion? Or is it a tyrannical sociopathic cult/social/political system that any thinking person is wise to fear?
We should be paraphrasing Napier: “You say it is your religion to abuse the weak and kill infidels. Very well. We also have a custom: when you fly planes into towers, explode bombs in coffee shops, plant explosives in your pantaloons (etc., etc., etc.), we will track you to the ends of the earth, prosecute you to the full extent of the law, tie a rope around your neck and hang you.”
“Offensive jihad” is well named. It is offensive in every sense of the word (as in hostile, attacking, aggressive; and causing hurt, anger, insult, reaction).
I am an Indian and here are my views to put things from Indian (read-infidel) perspective:
- Reg burning of women, this is not an indian or Hindu practice at all; this used to be prevalent in elite ruling classes of what is now Rajasthan, during Mughal rule. This was because, if the husband (usually ruling class) died and if his widow happened to be young and beautiful, she was usually coveted and carried away by then Moslem rulers. In order to be captive to Mohhammedans, the ladies thought it fit to die in the funeral pyre than to the join the harem of Mohammedans. Sati was a very very abominable custom, but it is not so widespread as some of you might like to believe.
- Reg the scourge of Islam, well, no country in the world has suffered at the hands of Islam like India has done. When British ruled India, they thought the Hindus were cunning and actively encouraged the Muslims, thinking they were nice, genteel people. The unstinted support offered by the left-leaning liberals has its origin here, due to the Britishers soft corner for Moslems in India. After partition and independence in the sub-continent, British actively promoted the immigration of muslims from Pak, and now look where they have landed themselves in.
- Islam is a dangerous cult, founded by a perverse, demented old-man suffering from mid-life crisis. Unlike other religious scriptures, the Holy Books of Islam has no deep, hidden layers.This is one religious scripture, more you delve deep into it, more you get revolted. For fear of offending Moslems, the white rulers kept them in good humor. Now, the world is paying the price for it.
- Israel and Palestinians have some issues; but the 1.5 billion Moslems hate Israel without knowing the root cause. US is pouring in billions of dollars in aid to Pakistan, but, still, the US is the most hated country in Pakistan (more than India). No day passes in Pakistan, without a procession resonating with ‘Death to America!’ chants.
- The Islam world, even as we read this, is plotting for the destruction of us. In another 20 years, a situation will come where there will inevitably a clash of civilizations. If we are not aware now, we won’t have any grandchildren to speak of
Naren: Thanks for providing additional context, valuable on every level.
Barbaric activity on the part of anyone for any reason should not be tolerated. The only resolution to the issue of jihad is out there in the field where blood must be spilled to defeat it.
What’s troubling for me is the ‘home grown’ terrorists in our borders today. The NYC would be bomber and other Muslim organizations along the East Coast who wanted to bomb synagogues.
Recently a Pakistan-born, American citizen is charged with plotting terrorist acts on D.C./Virginia Metro stations. The FBI conducted sting operations to nab him.
Farooque Ahmed’s his name.
Yeah, ‘Racial profiling’ sure is ‘bad’.
P C, empathy has and will continue to maim and kill.
There is one word which is ALWAYS associated with any Terrorist outrage anywhere in the world and that word is PAKISTAN as seen in “originally from from PAKISTAN’ ‘immigrant from PAKISTAN’ ‘second generation PAKISTANI immigrant” “PAKISTANI student” ‘terrorist trained in PAKISTAN’ ” planned in PAKISTAN” “funded by PAKISTAN”cross border ‘safe harbour’ in PAKISTAN’ “radicalised at a PAKISTANI Madrassa”.
Anyone else see a pattern here?
“Home grown”, or sneaked across the border? My guess is we have plenty of cells here, Hezbollah, AQ, and native or naturalized citizens too. Waiting for an order. Borders matter.
You almost wrote the true truth. I will write it for you.
Islam is the enemy of the West. See, that was not so hard.
What is also missing, is the other enemy. The CFR controled State Department trying their best to import millions of those who follow Mohammad, the true Islam, into the United States. Add millions of illegal aliens, and an open border with a bull dike in charge, and you got yourself an open war with American Nationalists.
Otherwise, I enjoyed reading your article.
Thank you for allowing my post, which according to some pink panty wearing fools is outside the mainstream, and part of the unwashed middle America.
BZO, or Die!
Agree 100%. Islam should be outlawed in this country and immigration stopped. Muslims should be made to register as agents of a foreign power and all imams should be wire tapped upon the slightest suspicion, and if preaching jihad, they should be deported. Best would be internment camps for Muslims.
Unchangeable human nature mandates the above, because the reason for such harsh treatment is that when one has a book believed to be authored by a divinity, the people who read it will follow it and live according to it. Thus, orthodox Muslims and fundamentalist Christians are mostly dissimilar but they do share a fervor for their cause. Other than the Koran being authored by pedophiliac monster, there are other parallels in the behavior of true believers by examining what they promote – one promotes love and peace and the other promotes death and destruction. I predict that until human blood is spilled on US soil again in sufficient amount, nothing will be done by our “elite.” We are now run by a ruling party that suffers from a serious illness – terminal stupidity. Many Americans elected a see-no-Islam president (I preferred McCain’s known mediocrity to the snake oil salesman Barack – detected by me in very early 2008). I declare that the next death in this country by a jihadist is on Barry’s head because it is quite probable that he might have rendered one key person in our national security apparatus fearful of connecting the dots in a meaningful way. Only one need be successful.
Thank you for your service to our country. Please stay squared away, the enemy is coming to us.
Dear Old,
To suggest that Islam and Christianity have anything in common besides devoted followers is disgusting! Islam isn’t even a religion; it’s a totalitarian, ideological birth to death way of life much like the Mafia that rewards you with a bullet through the head if you try to leave. It controls your dress, diet, family, financial and legal life, relationships ad nauseum. You’re commanded what to do and when to do it or else. In every country that has something similar to a formal Constitution like ours, Islam is treason because it seeks to overthrow secular rule and establish a global caliphate. The fruit of Islam is: terrorism, ‘honor’ killings, taqiyya, violence, ceaseless unrest in the Mid-East, female genital mutilation, overpopulation, entitlement mentality, refusal to blend with other cultures, misogyny, and much more, all negative.
Christianity is about a voluntary relationship with Jesus Christ, through which one is washed clean of their sins through His blood, thus enabled to worship the one Most High God and go to heaven when they die. By process of elimination, this means Muslims are worshipping a demon. Christianity encourages its adherents to emulate Christ’s behavior which was perfect and sinless, so its fruit is love, meekness, kindness, faithfulness, self-control, joy, peace, faith, goodness and long-suffering. For those others who commented that God in the Old Testament acted like allah. No, He didn’t. God is the same yesterday, today and always. I reiterate there is one God and His name is not allah! The killing in the Old Testament was always for a specific purpose; to punish wrongdoers or to acquire land through warfare. It wasn’t random acts of violence to kill and maim innocent men, women and children for no reason, as is the case in Islam.
This is a war between God (Christianity) and satan (Islam) that very soon will be consummated as prophesied in the Bible centuries ago. “And in that day will I make Jerusalem a burdensome stone for all people: all that burden themselves with it shall be cut in pieces, though all the people of the earth be gathered together against it. And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem.” Zechariah 12:3,9
As always, Mr. Ibrahim’s article was succinct, necessary and five star!
I’ve posted this before on other sites (and this one re another article) so here goes again:
The only difference between “moderate” Muslims and the terrorist “faction” is the difference between strategy and tactics.
It’s Ji-HAD, alright. Dey got nuttin’; Maybe dey had sumpin’, but it gone. If dey had anyting, they would be JI-GOT!
It is very simple the trouble between Muslims and the West. Just read their holy book the quran for yourself. To be true to their religion they must be the only religion in the world. They are taught it is okay to lie about their religions intentions as long as it spreads islam. My questions to the Muslims is why do you follow the preaching of Mohammad? When it is a historical fact that he was a mental case and a pedophile that preached hate. I think I will stick with Jesus, because he taught forgiveness, healed the sick, raised the dead, died for our sins not his sins and told us to love our enemies. Remember it is by GODS forgiveness we are all saved. Who did Mohammad ever heal or bring back to life?
Another great article from Raymond Ibrahim. Raelene’s (13) first para has an excellent point. ObamaYoMama (8) and zeprin (9) are too pessimistic. We can outlaw all the uncivilised barbaric actions of Islam without outlawing the thoughts of Islam. People should be allowed to have their religious ideas, but should not put the cruel ones into practice. Freedom of speech should not extend to incitement to kill (for example) or to promotion of any of the barbaric actions of Islam. You should be imprisoned if you advocate any barbaric act for a religious reason. The law should list all the barbaric practices and if, like Osama bin Laden or The Encyclopedia of Islam, you are discussing religion, the law should deem you are proposing barbaric practices be put into practice unless you make it clear that you are not saying that. Let us stop the confusion. Let us stand for one side or the other. The jihadis should either keep silent in the West, or leave the West, or go to prison in the West. We must defend our civilisation against its internal enemies or we must betray our children. We must defend the beautiful inheritance we have received, in which it is reasonable to hope for a better future if we have love in our hearts and the truth in our minds.
Not sure I follow you. How does one outlaw the uncivilised and barbaric actions of Islam whilst permitting Muslims to engage in freedom of religious thought?
In regard to Islam, the very essence of ‘freedom of religious thought’ that you propose is its literal interpretation of the Koran as the perfect and immutable words of Allah and Mohamed as the perfect man. It seems you are suggesting the solution is simple: encourage Muslims as an absolute and inalienable right to go ahead and think of murder, mayhem and ultimate global sharia in line with Allah’s supreme injunctions, but draw the line at putting it into practice in line with inferior, infidel expectations. In other words, reform the character and deeds and utterances of the perfect man (Mahomed) and dilute the authority of Islam’s perfect god, in order to please the enemy of that perfect man and god.
Fact is, no civilised document or principle of the past or the present, which were designed to improve and advance society, has or could have addressed or taken into consideration the destructive evils of Islam since that ideology’s core principles are alien to civilised Man. Not the US Constitution, the Geneva or other Conventions of the Post-War era, nor more current strictures like Human Rights and Civil Liberty charters and legislation; while these were designed to strengthen Western society in their own way, each perversely leaves that same society weakened and with an exposed underbelly to the insidious evils of Islam that were not taken into account.
Also, Islam could never be reformed to meet with the lowest standards of civilised conduct, since it is absurd to consider that a perfect product such as the Koran may be improved by change.
Quite simply, since the rights of some are at direct odds with the rights of others, we need to step back and determine whose rights are paramount. Having done so, or having failed to do so, if we as the most advanced civilisation ever are determined to blindly stand by our own values and principles, knowing through common sense and empirical observation that this will result in our eventual domination by a stunningly immature ideology, then we fully deserve the consequences of our own folly. Future generations will not thank us.
Not just Jihad, but Islamic Supremacism as a Imperialist Project to Subjugate the world to Islamic dominion, ordained by Allah in perpetuity. This can be achieved without the violence of Jihad, in the voting booth, via Lawfare, and so on and so forth.
“Offensive jihad” is as ridiculous a notion as the War on (the tactic of) Terror. Is there something somehow acceptable about an ‘inoffensive’ jihad that aims to impose the savage guest’s culture and lifestyle upon its host?
There are several forms of jihad both violent and nonviolent, and each is from offensive to repugnant in regard to the intended outrage against a naive and complacent host that remains largely and willfully ignorant of the implications.
The ‘Greater Jihad’, or personal struggle against the evil desires of the soul, is the highest form of Jihad and known. This is the Jihad that Muslims and apologists habitually use as misdirection in defending Islam.
The ‘Lesser Jihad’ is a multi-headed beast of struggle, and includes:
Jihad of the tongue, which furthers the cause of Islam by speaking it, and by criticising other religions and their followers in the expectation that this will encourage nonbelievers to reassess their faith.
Money Jihad (Jihad al-mal) encourages the giving of alms in support of other forms of Jihad, including violent. A Muslim that is unable to physically fight can still be a Jihadist by financially supporting those that can fight. Money Jihad is the most visible form of Jihad, with hundreds of millions of dollars provided by Muslims and Muslim nations towards persuading the infidel through violent and nonviolent means that the message of Islam is peace.
Jihad of war, physically opposes the nonbeliever through direct conflict and terrorism.
Jihad of deception (taqiya) reaches non-Muslims by a doctrine of praise and approval, sweet and charming talk, and wide eyed innocence.
Economic Jihad is the struggle to advance Islam or undermine the nonbeliever through economic means. One form of economic Jihad is waged by Islam holding the West hostage through the coincidence of abundant reserves of vital fossil fuels. The money generated from these fuels pays for and has a powerful influence on other forms of Jihad.
Political Jihad advances Islam by intimidating Western leaders into promoting Islam as a religion of peace and tolerance, and also draws support from Westerners with common political goals and ideologically driven contempt for Israel and the West.
Religious Jihad has the Islamist chuckling at infidel naiveté, as it advances itself in the West whilst preventing the West from exporting or promoting any of its religions into the Muslim world. As Islam and the West are driven towards different goals and ambitions, religious Jihad uses the principles, values, rights, freedoms and niceties of the West to undermine those societies by advancing Islam, whilst stunting and assailing other religions in the Muslim world.
Immigration Jihad is the struggle by Muslims to migrate and occupy their new environment without integrating with it, thereby exploiting the new colony and its host society’s own resources and principles and values as a base to spread Islam. Muslim migrants establish their own schools and community centres so that their children will be influenced only by Islamic standards, and will also agitate for more rights, with each concession gained furthering the cause of Islam and implicitly at the expense of the host nation.
Demographic Jihad undermines democracy by using its own principles that compel it to protect those that wish to do it harm. One way to overwhelm the population and achieve majority in a non-Muslim country is to kill the people, and the other is to increase the Muslim population at a faster rate than the host population; this is helped along by the Sharia sanction of multiple wives to increase the Muslim birth rate by up to four times, which does not include children from ‘temporary’ wives.
Legal Jihad gives an advantage to Muslims and Islamic organisations that continually probe, test, and seek advantage by grinding away at the legal and judicial resources and tolerance of the infidel, often with litigation and the threat of litigation to harass opponents and to obtain special privileges. Each victory is valued, whilst failure is also instructive since the strengths and weaknesses of each case may be considered for future litigation.
Intellectual Jihad, or academic debate, is generally weak and ineffective since much of the Islamic argument is repetitive, irrational, disruptive and evasive, and relies more on social mores than logical argument or sound persuasion. Although Muslims lose almost every public debate against critics of Islam, the core strength of reinforcement makes intellectual Jihad a compelling exercise since all exposure is ultimately good exposure. Muslims are unshakable, liberals and apologists are firmly entrenched with the enemy of their enemy, and it is ultimately left to the critics of Islam to make their case in an atmosphere of tolerant displeasure laced with shades of contempt.
The West is under siege on several fronts, as well as a treacherous fifth column formed by many of its own useful idiots – and we are not ‘too big to fail!’ Yet our leaders cannot see it, or more accurately would rather gouge out their own eyes than publicly acknowledge Islam as anything to do with multiple mortal threats against Western civilisation.
The enemy to be confronted and roundly defeated is neither Jihad nor Sharia, but the depraved, dysfunctional ideology of Islam.
This excellent article for the first time (known to me) investigates one of the fundamental problems of and with Islam: that it is a codified system of irrationalism that cannot be “reformed” without obliterating it as a distinct religious creed. Remove the belligerent jihadist commands from the Koran, for example, and it would cease to be Islam, not only in Muslim minds but in non-Muslim, as well. There would, of course, remain a host of other irrational assertions and imperatives, such as the sanctioning of wife-beating and the murder of apostates and the like, which are chiefly the byzantine and illogical underpinnings of Sharia law. The jihadist elements of Islam, however, are easily transmutable into a political policy, which is conquest of all non-Muslim or infidel governments and their submission to Sharia. Muslims are either obliged to wage jihad, or they’re not. Mohammad and the scholars say they are. End of argument, so far as Koranic interpretation goes, and that interpretation is biased to the literal.
This policy is operative and underway today in Western nations, and it is making progress only by default. Islam is strong only because the West’s defenders are emasculated by multiculturalist premises and a general disinclination to condemn any religion (and also by an unadmitted but general fear of giving offense – Muslims might start rioting and demonstrating again, claiming discrimination and disrespect, etc., none of it spontaneous but clearly organized and orchestrated by so-called “radicals”).
I was particularly impressed by the quotation from the Encyclopedia of Islam, which is an admission that “Islam must completely be made over before the doctrine of jihad can be eliminated.” But, if Islam is completely “made over,” what would be left of Islam that virtually any other creed couldn’t claim are its fundamental tenets, as well? And to “make over” Islam, its principal font of “kilman,” the objectionable and barbaric Mohammad, would need to be dispensed with. Remove one link of the irrational and arbitrary, and all the links fall to the floor.
Once Mohammad is removed, the next step would be to question the existence and credence of Allah; if he commanded jihad, and if his word is sacred and unalterable, and known only through Mohammad, then he would need to be subjected to a “make over,” much as the focus of Christian doctrine was shifted from an Allah-like Jehovah of the Old Testament to the largely pacific New Testament and Jesus Christ and his homilies. If a “reformation” of Islam is undertaken, where in Islamic lore is Christ’s counterpart? Would it be Abraham or Moses? Neither of them was much better than Mohammad in terms of their behavior towards men of other faiths; they also advocated the righteous slaughtering of the unfaithful and distributing slaves, women, and sheep among their more zealous followers. But then, all faiths are faced with that intellectual chore regarding their own individual conceptions of a “supreme being,” and not just Islam.
Ibrahim writes: “Worse, offensive jihad is part and parcel of Islam; it is no less codified than, say, Islam’s Five Pillars, which no Muslim rejects.” In sum, it is either-or: repudiate Islam entirely, or submit to the whole palimony of irrationalism. Or, as Ayn Rand might have put it: “You can’t have your mystic of muscle and deny him, too.” He is either the source of Islam’s potency, or he isn’t. And if he isn’t, whither Islam?
I am free, and they can’t stand it. If muslims think they are going to convert me to their crap Islam, and make me subject to their crap Sharia law, they’ve got another thing coming.
Bill Webb: Islam being a puritanical creed whose purpose is to save mankind, you would do well to keep H.L. Mencken’s observation in mind: “The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false-face for the urge to rule it.” And keep your powder dry. Beneath the piousness of any Muslim is a seething, percolating envy of men who are indeed free.
Perhaps my unintended discovery would shed a new light on this issue. When I realized that we are a generation that has lived in two palindrome years (1991 and 2002) and such an event will not occur again for another 1,000 years, I decided to investigate if there was any significance that could be attached to such coincidence. After looking at major events that occurred in the last 1000 years during palindrome years, I made a shocking discovery: Every palindrome year starting with 1001 and ending with 1991 had a Jihad motivated war between Islam and the rest of the world. I wrote a book THE DUAL 1991-2002 PALINDROME intended for young adults and illustrated by school children. I predicted that the years between 1991 and 2002 would set the dominant theme of the next millennium:
“It is also predicted that the continued confrontation between
the Muslim World and the West may escalate into a major war
starting in 2002 with consequences dominating the next millennium.
An attempt will be made, by declaring a “Jihad”, to recreate the
Ottoman Empire and to unite Muslims against the infidel.
The conflict between “modernization” or “westernization” of Islam
will be eventually resolved by reformation of the Muslim religion,
similar to the Reformation of Christianity. The age of the Muslim
religion and it’s intolerance of other religions reflects the
conditions of the Christian religion of the Dark Ages. This is the
Dark Age period of the Muslim religion. Reformation will eventually
lead to liberation of women and peace between the religions.”
Do you remember when Christians had their reformation in Europe?
The religious upheaval was followed by a century-and-a-half of war.
If Islam goes down this path, there will be war without end.
Whatever you do, don’t convert, don’t submit.
All the mysticism and ancient crap aside, if these idiots think they’re taking over the world they might as well flush twice because it’s a long way to hell.
islam/ MUSLIMS etc will be scattered to the four winds ; WITH ALLAH [THEIR MOON GOD] WHO WILL BE VANQUISHED; ISLAM WILL CEASE TO EXIST AS WILL ALL FALSE & PAGAN RELIGION INCL CHRISTENDOM ETC…YAHWEH & HIS SON JESUS THE MESSIAH [ & THE HOLY SPIRIT WITH GOD'S ANGELS ] WILL EXECUTE ALL THOSE WHOSE NAMES ARE NOT IN ” THE BOOK OF LIFE ” … BE READY/ PREPARED OR PERISH IN UN- BELIEVEABLE PAIN … ”NO ONE COMES TO MY FATHER EXCEPT THRU ME ”…. N.B. THE ” GRIM REAPER ” IS NOT A FAIRY TALE… SO ” GET RIGHT WITH GOD THRU HIS SON JESUS ” ASAP .. SEEK THE TRUTH NOT A HIJACKED VERSON… START BY TRANSLATING/UNDERSTANDING ” THE ESSENCE OF ” THE LORD’S PRAYER ” & THE BOOK OF ” REVELATIONS ” WHERE ALL IS REVEALED … GOOGLE FIRSTLY IF YOU FEEL THIS IS O.K. REAL ENLIGHTENMENT & SALVATION AWAITS YOU.. JESUS IS OUR/ YOUR ” BEST BET “.YA DON’T NEED 2 BOB EACH WAY .. JUST *** JESUS FOR A BIG WIN ***DO YOU THINK ANY MOB WHO SAYS YOU WILL BE SLAUGHTERED/ KILLED BY THEIR GOONS IF YOU LEAVE US IS MENTALLY SANE ?? HEY .. THE TRUTH REALLY WILL SET YOU FREE ***
google ” time -line of world’s religions ” for greater insight ‘CAUSE they all seem to pledgerize & mix with pagan anniverseries/ practices… & some of their own sic thinking/ activities…. SO … seek the truth***IF YOU DARE***
For latеst іnformation you haνе to visit web
and on іnternet I fоunԁ this wеbsite as a finеst wеb page for nеwest upԁates.